They can go bite a donkeyby RoninRodent - Monday December 08, 2014 @11:34AM

"They use my bandwidth (without permission) to peddle me ads for things I don't want and they think the courts should force me to look at their ads by removing my choice? I use ABP specifically because I don't want their invasive rubbish. The courts should be forcing them to ASK me if I want them using my bandwidth if anything as they are effectively stealing it."

One reply to this correct him by saying that technically he did request the ads when he clicked the link to the page. But I do understand hi sentiment, sometimes the ad content is 90% of the bits making up the page.

It is an advertisements JOB to be seen, it by definition cannot be transparent.

I have no problem with most internet ads. However the full page loads that interrupt my reading, and the "key-word bubbles" that hide text (again interrupting my reading) are both terrible advertising ploys.

Advertising methods that make my visit to any given website LESS enjoyable do not make me want to consider your product OR return to your website!

This sounds like you are stuck in the mindset where "time-shifting" doesn't exist. Stop operating on the premise that all viewers must watch a program at a specific scheduled time.

I have always wondered why advertisers aren't demanding individualized programming, ad targeting would be far more focused and effective. Just because a program is streamed does NOT mean its viewers are intolerant of advertising. Viewers will accept advertising if it is not so heavy handed. And it would be nice to have 50 minutes / hour of actual PROGRAMMING.

To Mr. Henley et al. this is about money, however you you and I it is not. To me this is about our culture and our "world". As a work becomes more well known it becomes more and more pervasive, more a PART OF who we are, not just a picture, or sound or string of words. The adds referenced in this article, in fact MANY MANY ads and slogans have meaning NOT because an artist created then but because we are so familiar with them they are part of who we are.

We can (and SHOULD) be grateful to the artists among us for giving us these touchstones. But once the works have touched so many lives they can no longer be owned by anyone ... no matter what any law attempts to dictate. Rule and laws meant to contain ownership of ideas will never be effective or just.

To the artists I say thank you for your contributions to our world, I look forward to your next one.

The erosion of rights and liberties in response to so-called threats is in itself a far bigger threat

Precisely! And that agenda is being moved forward almost exclusively because of real and implied terrorist threats. The continual erosion of liberty around the world is a reaction to fear of terrorist actions. People do not give up liberty easily or willingly, they do it only in the face of fear. Yes there are people capitalising on and actively trying to make people more fearful. But they are only opportunists, they have no interest in the outcome, only profits. The problem is extremist and totalitarian behavior and beliefs ... on all sides.

You need to drop the toddler-speak, it greatly damages your credibility. It makes every bit of sense to be beside-yourself with anger, but if you cannot continue to communicate in an even-tempered and articulate manner no one will listen to you.

I am guessing that you (and others,) are making the assumption that because the photographer owned the camera he owns the photo. Why would that be the case?The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?

I am guessing that you (and others,) are making the assumption that because the photographer owned the camera he owns the photo. Why would that be the case? The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?

I do not intend that point as an anti-racism argument. A person's genetic ethnicity is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. There are many cultural and societal differences among people, such as religious or financial background, access to education or relative learning ability (etc.), that may have strong bearing on a given situation. But to say that any of those cultural or societal differences are the strict result that a person is a member of any general genetic grouping is patently false.

"It's not the color of a man's skin it's the man inside that you must know." -- Someone Said

"the voting habits of congress shows they are probably being controlled"

I think this statement is just a bit paranoid and conspiratory. I do agree that congress members behavior is highly influenced, but that influence is money. And it is largely self-inflicted influence. It may be possible to influence your representative with financial stimulus, but it is FAR easier to find out what they're looking for and use that.

Put another way, it is easier to influence someone who is looking to be influenced!

I completely agree with your comments here. Your statements are concise and well presented. I would very much like for SOMEONE to present the counter to your arguments (whether that presenter believes that position or not.) I know that They seem to be incapable of making a rational counter argument, They keep trying to use "talking points" as an argument, and They seem to have the opinion that they should not need to defend themselves.